Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-03-23
the Globe Democrat had 81 last deigncd
70 read the letters OF the special CORE
spondents OF that paper who have been
"doing the South.
The Drummcrs' Decision Again.

----------------------
The Drummcrs' Decision Again.
To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
In your leader OF yesterday, headed
1.-THE Drummer Decision" the Ian
guage used by you in the second SEN
tence OF the article is not as clear III
its meaning as you generally write.
You wrote eve have TO say that In
case from Massachusetts, that court
(meaning, ! suppose, the Supreme
Court OF the United States) decided
wears ago that United States license
under the internal-revenue laws did NOT
authorize person the latter Italics
my own to sell such liquors in State
whose laws prohibited their SALE" IL
Won had used the word drummer L
would have understood what you wrote.
The "person" may have been resi-
dent OF Massachusetts,, and the case
brought before the Supreme Court OF
the United States to test the question
whether the State OF Massachusetts, had
a right to prevent its own citizens (resi-
dents of the State) FROM engaging in
the sale of liquors-that is, keeping
neutrality-suspicious. and stores for Me sale
of liquor. do not deny the right OF the
United States to legislate con-
corning the traffic of railroads
running through two or more States,
but do deny the right OF the United
States to interfere with railroad en-
tirely in Virginia and which has no con-
nection with railroad running to the
State from some other State. This
being so, do not deny that the State
Of Virginia can pass law prohibiting
her own citizens from running saloons
and keeping stores for the sale OF liquor,
but do deny her right under the Con-
stitution Of the United States and I'M
der the late decision OF the Supreme
Court to prevent drummers from other
States coming to Virginia and selling
without any tax "goods OF other
States, even If such goods" are
liquors. The latter is recognized by
the laws of most of the States as pro-
perty which q man can legally hold.
Certainly the laws of the United States
recognize liquors as property. 1t does
this in a double sense, as the
Government absolutely gives its
permit that a "person may
engage in its manufacture. This
is more than can be said about any
other product that is manufactured in
the United States save tobacco and
oleomargarine That part OF the de-
cision Of the Court OF the United
States quoted by you expressly states
that "no discrimination can be made
by any such regulations adversely to
the persons or property of other
States" Now, not only is whiskey
recognized in most Of the States as
QegaD property, but it is positively
and unequivocally recognized rs such
by the laws of the United States.
Such being the fact, and as the Court
decided that the drummers' tax was
unconstitutional" and an infringe
ment on the right of Congress to regu-
late commerce between the States, how
State could undertake to forbid the
sale Of whiskey by drummers from
other States is beyond my cOmprehen-
sion. Mark further, il you please, that
the Court repeated it-that the States
could not legislate on matters "di-
rectly connected with foreign or inter
State commerce, or with some other
employment or business exercised I'M
der authority OF the Constitution and
laws of the United States" This last
extract satisfies me that no State could
constitutionally hold that an article
manufactured in some other State by
permission Of the laws of the United
States could be held as injurious to the
health or morals of Its people to such
an extent as would justify the passage
of bill "to prevent its sale" If the
States have the power to declare that
any one product made or manufactured
in some other State is injurious to the
health or morals OF its people, then il
is clear that they would have the right
to declare many other things SO. II
Virginia is to regard whiskey as inju-
rious to the health and morals of its
people, then Of course any of the other
States (or all of them) might declare
| tobacco was so. 1t would never
do for the States to undertake to Grip
pie or destroy any business which a
o person lin some other State) might
have legal right to follow "under the
laws of the United States" A State
can legislate concerning the privileges
Of its own resident citizens, but it can
not take away the rights of citizens OF
some other State when such rights are
guaranteed to them by the Constitution
and laws of the United States. TIC
nv mind the latter was the whole gisI
and substance of the late decision Of
the Supreme Court, and which decision
is now the supreme law of the land, re-
gardless of any previous decision il
may have ever made Clearing even dl
rectly on the question:, if any.
I have lived long enough to have
found out that things often are differ
ent from what | would like for them tC
have been, and to have learned that
my wishes. could in no sort OF way
change existing facts; consequently, il
reading any high decision my purpose
is to get at the facts, regardless OF wha
l desired those facts to be. G. Nj. A.
&C. NJ. A." will be convinced in due
tine that he mistakes the decision o.
which he writes.
| ------
Tho New south.